From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
To: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>
Cc: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] mt76x2: move mt76x2_dev in mt76x02_util.h
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 13:12:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181003111217.GC2250@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ0CqmWTZJ+Q_O++8DijdExwbsJEqEqxinHCe8OYocBTRTDZLw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:01:40PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 12:19:04AM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > Move mt76x2_dev in mt76x02_util.h and rename it in mt76x02_dev
> > > in order to be shared between mt76x2 and mt76x0 driver
> > <snip>
> > > +struct mt76x02_dev {
> > > + struct mt76_dev mt76; /* must be first */
> > > +
> > > + struct mac_address macaddr_list[8];
> > > +
> > > + struct mutex mutex;
> > > +
> > > + u8 txdone_seq;
> > > + DECLARE_KFIFO_PTR(txstatus_fifo, struct mt76x02_tx_status);
> > > +
> > > + struct sk_buff *rx_head;
> > > +
> > > + struct tasklet_struct tx_tasklet;
> > > + struct tasklet_struct pre_tbtt_tasklet;
> > > + struct delayed_work cal_work;
> > > + struct delayed_work mac_work;
> > > +
> > > + u32 aggr_stats[32];
> > > +
> > > + struct sk_buff *beacons[8];
> > > + u8 beacon_mask;
> > > + u8 beacon_data_mask;
> > > +
> > > + u8 tbtt_count;
> > > + u16 beacon_int;
> > > +
> > > + struct mt76x02_calibration cal;
> > > +
> > > + s8 target_power;
> > > + s8 target_power_delta[2];
> > > + bool enable_tpc;
> > > +
> > > + u8 coverage_class;
> > > + u8 slottime;
> > > +
> > > + struct mt76x02_dfs_pattern_detector dfs_pd;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > <snip>
> > > static bool
> > > -mt76x2_has_cal_free_data(struct mt76x2_dev *dev, u8 *efuse)
> > > +mt76x2_has_cal_free_data(struct mt76x02_dev *dev, u8 *efuse)
> >
> > I don't think this is right approach. I would rather prefer to have
> > common data structures embeded in mt76x2_dev and mt76x0_dev
> > structures to have chip sepcific fields/data separated.
> >
>
> The reason of this patch is that mt76x0_dev fields are already in mt76x2_dev
> so I guess there is no need to have different structures. Moreover in
> this way we can
> remove a lot of duplicated code between mt76x0 and mt76x2 drivers.
But you can still create additional structures i.e.
mt76x02_power {
s8 target_power;
s8 target_power_delta[2];
bool enable_tpc;
}
mt76x02_conf {
u8 coverage_class;
u8 slottime;
}
put them into mt76xN_dev and still remove dupicated code ?
Thanks
Stanislaw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-03 11:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-01 22:19 [PATCH 06/10] mt76x2: move mt76x2_dev in mt76x02_util.h Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-10-03 10:43 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2018-10-03 11:01 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2018-10-03 11:12 ` Stanislaw Gruszka [this message]
2018-10-03 11:49 ` Felix Fietkau
2018-10-03 13:32 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2018-10-03 13:51 ` Felix Fietkau
2018-10-03 13:55 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181003111217.GC2250@redhat.com \
--to=sgruszka@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com \
--cc=nbd@nbd.name \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.